34338 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Remove from service the following 

engine mount parts: 

(A) Support arm, P/N C714A1107201; 

(B) Swaged support arm, P/N 

C714A1106201; 

(C) Left-hand support bracket, P/N 

C714A1101102; and 

(D) Right-hand support bracket, P/N 

C714A1101103. 

(ii) Measure the height of the engine 

mounting base as depicted in Figure 1 of 

Eurocopter Alert SB No. 04A005, Revision 0, 

dated July 16, 2003. If the height is more than 

10.5 millimeters, replace the engine mount 

with an engine mount that does not have the 

parts identified in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this 

AD. 

(2) For helicopters with a serial number 

1170 and larger or helicopters modified with 

an improvement of the engine mount in 

accordance with SB 71–003: 

(i) Within 25 hours TIS, replace the springtype engine suspension system and perform 

a dye-penetrant inspection of the flared 

coupling for a crack by following the 

Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 

2.B.2.a through 2.B.2.c of SB 71–005. 

(ii) If there is a crack in the flared coupling, 

before further flight, replace the coupling 

with an airworthy coupling. 

(3) For helicopters with coupling tube, P/ 

N C631A1002101, installed, before further 

flight, remove coupling tube, P/N 

C631A1002101, from service. Do not install 

coupling tube, P/N C631A1002101, on any 

helicopter. 

(g) Special Flight Permits 

Special flight permits may be issued 

provided there are no cracks in the coupling 

tube attachment fitting. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Safety Management 

Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this 

AD. Send your proposal to: James Blyn, 

Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and 

Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 

76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email 

james.blyn@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 

CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 

14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that 

you notify your principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office or 

certificate holding district office before 

operating any aircraft complying with this 

AD through an AMOC. 

(i) Additional Information 

(1) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 

No. 05A003, Revision 2, dated July 16, 2003, 

Eurocopter ASB No. 05A003, Revision 3, 

dated May 11, 2004, and Eurocopter Service 

Bulletin No. 71–003, Revision 1, dated July 

18, 2002, which are not incorporated by 

reference, contain additional information 

about the subject of this AD. For service 

information identified in this AD, contact 

Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum 

Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75052, telephone 

(972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323; fax (972) 

641–3775; or at http://

www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You 

may review a copy of the service information 

at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 

(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in 

Direction Generale de L’Aviation Civile 

(DGAC) AD No. F–2003–325 R1, Revision A, 

dated May 12, 2004. You may view the 

DGAC AD on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA– 

2014–0105. 

(j) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 6310 Engine/Transmission Coupling— 

Coupling Tube, Engine Mount, and Engine 

Mount Base. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 29, 

2015. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–14282 Filed 6–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 61 and 141 

[Docket No.: FAA–2015–1846; Notice No. 

15–03] 

RIN 2120–AK71 

Aviation Training Device Credit for 

Pilot Certification 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This rulemaking proposes to 

relieve burdens on pilots seeking to 

obtain aeronautical experience, training, 

and certification by increasing the 

allowed use of aviation training devices. 

These actions are necessary to bring the 

regulations in line with current needs 

and activities of the general aviation 

training community and pilots. 

DATES: Send comments on or before July 

16, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2015–1846 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 

public to better inform its rulemaking 

process. DOT posts these comments, 

without edit, including any personal 

information the commenter provides, to 

http://www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can 

be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/

privacy. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Marcel Bernard, Airmen 

Certification and Training Branch, 

Flight Standards Service, AFS–810, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 898 

Airport Park Road, Suite 204, Glen 

Burnie, MD 21061; telephone: (410) 

590–5364 x235 email marcel.bernard@

faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Anne Moore, Regulations 

Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

AGC–200, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–3073; email 

anne.moore@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Subtitle 

I, Section 106 describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the 

authority of the Administrator to 

promulgate regulations and rules; 49 

U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the 

Administrator to promote safe flight of 

civil aircraft in air commerce by 

prescribing regulations and setting 

minimum standards for other practices, 

methods, and procedures necessary for 

safety in air commerce and national 

security; and 49 U.S.C. 44703(a), which 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 34339 

1Section 61.4(c) states that the ‘‘Administrator 

may approve a device other than a flight simulator 

or flight training device for specific purposes.’’ 

2 In a 2007 NPRM, the FAA proposed to limit the 

time in a personal computer-based aviation training 

device that could be credited toward the instrument 

rating. Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School 

Certification NPRM, 72 FR 5806 (February 7, 2007). 

Three commenters recommended that the FAA use 

the terms ‘‘basic aviation training device’’ (BATD) 

and ‘‘advanced aviation training device’’ (AATD). 

Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School 

Certification Final Rule, 74 FR 42500 (August 21, 

2009) (‘‘2009 Final Rule’’). In response to the 

commenters, the FAA changed the regulatory text 

in the final rule to ‘‘aviation training device,’’ 

noting BATDs and AATDs ‘‘as being aviation 

training devices (ATD) are defined’’ in an advisory 

circular. 

3 ‘‘Notice of Policy Change for the Use of FAA 

Approved Training Devices,’’ January 2, 2014. 

4Under § 61.65, a person who applies for an 

instrument rating must have completed 40 hours of 

actual or simulated instrument time of which 15 

hours must have been with an authorized instructor 

who holds the appropriate instrument rating. 

5Under appendix C, each approved course for an 

instrument rating must include 35 hours of 

instrument training for an initial instrument rating 

or 15 hours of instrument training for an additional 

instrument rating. 

6 79 FR 71634, December 3, 2014, withdrawn at 

80 FR 2001, January 15, 2015 (RIN 2120–AK62). 

requires the Administrator to prescribe 

regulations for the issuance of airman 

certificates when the Administrator 

finds, after investigation, that an 

individual is qualified for, and 

physically able to perform the duties 

related to, the position authorized by 

the certificate. 

I. Background 

Since the 1970s, the FAA has 

gradually expanded the permitted use of 

flight simulation for training—first 

permitting simulation to be used in air 

carrier training programs and eventually 

permitting pilots to credit time in 

devices toward the aeronautical 

experience requirements for airman 

certification and recency. Currently, 

Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 60 governs 

the qualification of flight simulation 

training devices (FSTDs), which include 

full flight simulators (FFSs) level A 

through D and flight training devices 

(FTDs) levels 4 through 7. The FAA has, 

however, approved other devices, 

including aviation training devices 

(ATDs), for use in pilot certification 

training, under the authority provided 

in 14 CFR 61.4(c).1

For over 30 years, the FAA has issued 

letters of authorization (LOAs) to 

manufacturers of ground trainers, 

personal computer-based aviation 

training devices (PCATD), FTDs (levels 

1 through 3), basic aviation training 

devices (BATD), and advanced aviation 

training devices (AATD). These LOAs 

were based on guidance provided in 

advisory circulars (ACs) that set forth 

the qualifications and capabilities for 

the devices. Prior to 2008, most LOAs 

were issued under the guidance 

provided in AC 61–126, Qualification 

and Approval of Personal ComputerBased Aviation Training Devices, and 

AC 120–45, Airplane Flight Training 

Device Qualification. Starting in July of 

2008, the FAA approved devices in 

accordance with AC 61–136, FAA 

Approval of Basic Aviation Training 

Devices (BATD) and Advanced Aviation 

Training Devices (AATD). More 

recently, on December 3, 2014, the FAA 

published a revision to AC 61–136A, 

Approval of Aviation Training Devices 

and Their Use for Training and 

Experience. 

In 2009, the FAA issued a final rule 

that for the first time introduced the 

term ‘‘aviation training device’’ into the 

regulations and placed express limits on 

the amount of instrument time in an 

ATD that could be credited toward the 

aeronautical experience requirements 

for an instrument rating.2

Since the 2009 final rule, § 61.65(i) 

has provided that no more than 10 

hours of instrument time received in an 

ATD may be credited toward the 

instrument time requirements of that 

section. In addition, appendix C to part 

141 permits an ATD to be used for no 

more than 10 percent of the total flight 

training hour requirements of an 

approved course for an instrument 

rating. 

Prior to the 2009 final rule, the FAA 

had issued hundreds of LOAs to 

manufacturers of devices that permitted 

some ATDs (as well as ground trainers, 

and FTDs (levels 1 through 3)) to be 

used to a greater extent than was 

ultimately set forth in the regulations. 

The FAA continued to issue LOAs for 

AATDs in excess of the express 

limitations in the regulations after the 

publication of the 2009 final rule. 

On January 2, 2014, the FAA 

published a notice of policy requiring 

manufacturers of ATDs to obtain new 

LOAs reflecting the appropriate 

regulatory allowances for ATD use. 79 

FR 20.3 The notice stated the FAA’s 

conclusion that it could not use LOAs 

to exceed express limitations that had 

been placed in the regulations through 

notice and comment rulemaking. The 

FAA noted that, since August 2013, 

LOAs issued for new devices reflect 

current regulatory requirements. 

However, manufacturers and operators 

who held LOAs issued prior to August 

2013 acted in reliance on FAA 

statements that were inconsistent with 

the regulations. Therefore, the FAA 

granted a limited exemption from the 

requirement in the regulations to 

provide manufacturers, operators, and 

pilots currently training for an 

instrument rating time to adjust to the 

reduction in creditable hours. This 

short-term exemption was intended to 

provide an interim period to transition 

the LOAs for all previously approved 

devices in accordance with the new 

policy. The FAA found the exemption 

to be in the public interest in order to 

prevent undue harm caused by 

reasonable reliance on the LOAs. 

As stated in the notice, this short term 

exemption expired on January 1, 2015. 

The FAA explained that after that date, 

no applicant training for an instrument 

rating under part 61 may use more than 

10 hours of instrument time in an ATD 

toward the minimum aeronautical 

experience requirements required to 

take the practical test for an instrument 

rating.4 In addition, no instrument 

rating course approved under appendix 

C to part 141 may credit more than 10 

percent of training in ATDs toward the 

total flight training hour requirements of 

the course (unless that program has 

been approved in accordance with 

§ 141.55(d) or (e)).5

To address the discrepancy between 

the level of ATD credit allowed 

historically by LOA and the lower 

allowances placed in the regulations, 

the FAA published a direct final rule 

that would have amended the 

regulations governing the use of ATDs.6

The direct final rule would have 

increased the use of these devices for 

instrument training requirements above 

the levels established in the 2009 final 

rule. In developing this direct final rule, 

the FAA noted that ATD development 

has advanced to an impressive level of 

capability. Many ATDs can simulate 

weather conditions with variable winds, 

variable ceilings and visibility, icing, 

turbulence, high definition (HD) visuals, 

hundreds of different equipment failure 

scenarios, navigation specific to current 

charts and topography, specific 

navigation and communication 

equipment use, variable ‘‘aircraft 

specific’’ performance, and more. The 

visual and motion component of some 

of these devices permit maneuvers that 

require outside visual references in an 

aircraft to be successfully taught in an 

AATD. Many of these simulation 

capabilities were not possible in 

previously approved devices (such as 

PCATDs). 

In the direct final rule, the FAA stated 

its belief that permitting pilots to log 

increased time in ATDs would 

encourage pilots to practice maneuvers 

until they are performed to an 

acceptable level of proficiency. In an 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
34340 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

7The direct final rule and the comments received 

thereto may be found in FAA Docket No. FAA– 

2014–0987 at http://www.regulations.gov. 

ATD, a pilot can replay the training 

scenario, identify any improper action, 

practice abnormal/emergency 

procedures, and determine corrective 

actions without undue hazard or risk to 

persons or property. In this fashion, a 

pilot can continue to practice tasks and 

maneuvers in a safe, effective, and cost 

efficient means of maintaining 

proficiency. 

II. The Direct Final Rule 

As described in the previous section, 

to address the discrepancy between 

FAA regulations and prior policy, on 

December 3, 2014, the FAA published a 

direct final rule that would have 

increased the allowed use of ATDs. The 

FAA received 20 comments to the direct 

final rule.7 The provisions of the direct 

final rule, the comments received, and 

FAA’s responses to those comments are 

discussed below. 

A. Credit for Aeronautical Experience 

Requirements for an Instrument Rating 

and Approved Instrument Rating 

Courses 

Credit for aeronautical experience 

requirements for an instrument rating: 

The direct final rule would have 

increased the maximum time that may 

be credited in an ATD toward the 

aeronautical experience requirements 

for an instrument rating under 

§ 61.65(i). The direct final rule would 

have permitted a person to credit a 

maximum of 20 hours of aeronautical 

experience acquired in an approved 

ATD toward the requirements for an 

instrument rating. Devices that qualify 

as AATDs would have been authorized 

for up to 20 hours of experience to meet 

the instrument time requirements. 

Devices that qualify as BATDs would 

have been authorized for a maximum of 

10 hours of experience to meet the 

instrument time requirements. 

Approved instrument rating courses: 

The direct final rule also would have 

amended appendix C to part 141 to 

increase the limit on the amount of 

training hours that may be 

accomplished in an ATD in an approved 

course for an instrument rating. An ATD 

would have been permitted to be used 

for no more than 40 percent of the total 

flight training hour requirements in an 

approved instrument rating course. 

Comments received: The FAA 

received 20 comments regarding these 

provisions. Eighteen comments 

supported the provisions. However, two 

commenters raised concerns. As those 

comments were adverse to the direct 

final rule, the FAA was required to 

withdraw the direct final rule, 80 FR 

2001, (Jan. 15, 2015). 14 CFR 11.13. The 

comments and FAA’s responses are 

discussed below. 

Comments supporting the direct final 

rule: Eighteen comments supported the 

direct final rule provisions with 16 

comments from individuals, and two 

from the Society of Aviation and Flight 

Educators (SAFE) and the Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). 

Nine commenters simply stated their 

general support. Several other 

commenters noted that use of ATDs 

would save pilots time and money. The 

FAA notes that none of those 

commenters provided quantified 

estimates regarding time or cost savings. 

One commenter asserted that the 

ability to simulate a wide variety of 

situations or to drill procedures through 

repetition in an ATD is far greater than 

in the actual aircraft. The commenter 

believed that the ATD learning 

environment is less stressful, less noisy, 

and less unpredictable, thus making it a 

better classroom to learn detailed 

instrument procedures. 

Another commenter asserted that the 

rule provisions would enhance safety by 

allowing more pilots to add instrument 

ratings to their certificates. The 

commenter believed that the rule 

provisions would potentially reduce 

controlled flight into terrain accidents 

because pilots would be more likely to 

have a higher level of proficiency in 

controlling solely by reference to the 

instruments. 

One commenter expressed a desire 

that the same principles applied to 

required instrument experience under 

14 CFR 61.57. The FAA notes that this 

comment is beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

Adverse comments: The FAA received 

two adverse comments regarding these 

provisions. The first commenter, who 

indicated he is a professional pilot, 

airline transport pilot, and flight 

instructor with multiple ratings 

(airplane multiengine, airplane singleengine, and instrument-airplane), 

believed that flight requires the use and 

correlation of all senses in order to make 

a lasting impression. The commenter 

believed the fundamentals of instructing 

agrees with this position. More 

importantly, the commenter believed 

that acclimation to instrument 

meteorological conditions helps pilots 

relate these various inputs and strategies 

to deal with them. The commenter 

asserted that ATDs are valuable as 

procedure trainers, but not as valuable 

as ‘‘everyone seems to think. The rapid 

redeployment of a situation seems like 

an advantage, yet it diminishes the 

learning because it seems so easy to 

recover from a botched maneuver.’’ The 

commenter also asserted that resetting 

the situation diminishes the ‘‘routine’’ 

that a pilot relies on to take him or her 

to a specific place, which interferes 

greatly with the learning of each step. 

The commenter also believed that no 

amount of graphic imagery or display 

setup, even in full motion simulators, 

ever causes a pilot to lose consciousness 

of the fact that it is a simulator. The 

commenter asserted that flight 

simulators are wonderful, but very 

limited devices. Instead of increasing a 

pilot’s skill, however, they have come 

between real-world flying and desktop 

flying. The commenter stated that they 

have increased reliance on screens and 

autopilots and diminished the pilot’s 

sense of being in charge of the aircraft 

and the flight. Stalls, thunderstorms, 

and icing are the greatest dangers, yet 

ATDs cannot depict these accurately or 

realistically. 

Finally, the commenter noted the 

belief that the industry at large always 

diminishes the importance of safety and 

increases the importance of costs 

whenever training requirements are 

considered. The commenter believed 

one hour in any aircraft is worth ten in 

front of an ATD. The commenter stated, 

‘‘The cost of a lost aircraft and all its 

crew is not worth the imagined savings 

gained from flying imaginary aircraft in 

imaginary environments.’’ 

The second commenter, who is or 

was, a flight instructor with an 

instrument rating and an air traffic 

controller, questioned whether flight 

students should be trained and live in 

an unrealistic world. The commenter 

believed that training in the classroom 

environment and in labs was an 

excellent preparatory environment, but 

nothing like the realities of real life. 

While the commenter ‘‘highly 

recommend[ed]’’ the use of such 

devices, the commenter cautioned the 

direct final rule included too much of a 

reduction. The commenter advised: 

‘‘Proceed with appropriate caution and 

understand the risk involved.’’ 

Public comments responding to the 

adverse comments: SAFE submitted a 

comment in response to the first adverse 

comment received. SAFE noted that 

microprocessor developments over the 

past several years have resulted in a 

new generation of increasingly 

affordable mid and upper level devices 

which replicate sensory inputs with an 

incredible degree of accuracy and which 

are becoming commonplace in the 

training market. SAFE stated that ATDs 

can provide the student with excellent 

opportunities to focus on learning the 

correct procedures for situations such as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 34341 

8http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

handbooks_manuals/aviation/. 

9FAA–H–8083–15B Instrument Flying Handbook 

updated 7/2/2014 pg. 3–9. 

10FAA–H–8083–9A Flight Instructors Handbook 

pg. 2–35. 11AC 91–74A Pilot Guide: Flight in Icing 

Conditions, Pilot Strategies pg. 42. 12AIM Aeronautical Information Manual 7–1–29 

Thunderstorm Flying. 

nighttime operations, narrow or sloping 

runways, glassy water, and instrument 

meteorological conditions without 

interference from conflicting or adverse 

sensory inputs before being exposed to 

them in the live flight environment 

where confusion can occur between the 

body and the brain until training and 

experience overcome the sensory input. 

SAFE claimed that ‘‘Peer reviewed 

research conclusively shows that when 

properly utilized as part of a 

comprehensive training program 

[training] devices actually speed up the 

learning process by allowing students to 

bypass areas of successful 

understanding and to concentrate on 

areas where more practice is required. 

. . . Specific research by the military 

and major airlines show that these 

devices can consistently enhance 

student retention of lesson material, 

increase student confidence levels, and 

reduce accident and loss rates.’’ The 

FAA notes that SAFE did not provide 

sources for these claims. 

SAFE further asserted that ATDs have 

proven very effective in simulating 

certain emergencies too dangerous to 

practice in the air. This practice builds 

pilot confidence in being prepared to 

handle such situations should they 

occur. SAFE also asserted that current 

military and civilian research shows a 

positive relationship between ATD use 

and safer flying. SAFE did not provide 

research or source citations to support 

these assertions. 

Finally, SAFE noted that one of the 

key factors in today’s extreme dropout 

rate in flight training is the ‘‘very high 

cost.’’ SAFE stated ‘‘[W]e must find a 

way to contain the training costs 

without sacrificing safety or operation 

utility. ATDs, properly utilized, are a 

modern component in achieving this.’’ 

AOPA also supported the rule with 

the following statement and stated that 

the FAA should ‘‘continue to permit the 

flight training industry to maximize the 

use of aviation training devices (ATDs) 

for instrument flight training in order to 

certificate safe competent pilots in a 

structured and economical way.’’ AOPA 

also provided discussion concerning the 

adverse comments received and 

suggested why they should be 

considered without substance and not 

adverse within the context of the direct 

final rulemaking process. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

the commenters who support increased 

training time in ATDs, including the 

comments related to the dynamic 

training capability of these devices, cost 

savings, and recent technical 

advancements that enhance the 

usability of ATDs. 

To the extent that an adverse 

commenter asserted that flying must 

involve a ‘‘correlation of all senses’’ and 

that ‘‘sounds and feel are vital to 

recognizing unusual attitudes’’ when 

other senses fail, the FAA disagrees 

concerning positive aircraft control 

skills and has provided extensive 

guidance on this topic in the Instrument 

Flying Handbook (FAA–H–8083–15B).8

In particular, the Handbook advises that 

pilots should disregard sensory 

perceptions and ‘‘[m]ost importantly, 

become proficient in the use of the flight 

instruments and rely upon them.’’ The 

Handbook further states ‘‘[t]hese 

undesirable sensations cannot be 

completely prevented, but through 

training and awareness, pilots can 

ignore or suppress them by developing 

absolute reliance on the flight 

instruments.’’ 9

The FAA believes that training in 

ATDs and FSTDs, when used in 

conjunction with training in an aircraft, 

teach an instrument student to trust the 

appropriate sense, vision, in order to 

successfully operate an aircraft in low 

visibility conditions. Training in an 

ATD reinforces this necessary skill and 

any reliance on ‘‘sounds or feel’’ may 

ultimately lead to loss of control when 

operating an aircraft in instrument 

meteorological conditions. Because 

ignoring the postural senses involves 

relying on visual clues, the ATD 

provides an excellent platform for a 

pilot to develop this portion of his or 

her instrument flying skills. The FAA 

recognizes that a device does not require 

motion in order to be approved as an 

AATD; thus, these devices are limited in 

that they cannot completely train the 

pilot to ignore outside sensory 

perceptions. The FAA finds that a pilot 

can develop this ability during the 

aeronautical experience that an 

applicant for an instrument rating must 

obtain in an aircraft. 

The same commenter also discussed 

the capability of an aviation training 

device to ‘‘[reset] the situation.’’ The 

commenter suggested that this 

capability makes it too easy to recover 

from an unsatisfactory maneuver by 

simply returning to a previous location 

during the simulated flight. The 

commenter explained that this 

diminishes the routine that a pilot relies 

on during flight. The FAA does not 

agree and finds significant value in the 

ability of the device to be reconfigured 

to return to a point at which the pilot 

is having difficulty with a particular 

procedure or maneuver. This will allow 

the pilot to practice the corrective action 

until able to successfully complete the 

procedure or maneuver. This feature 

allows repetitive practice of a difficult 

procedure in a short period of time that 

could potentially add hours of training 

if accomplished in an aircraft. 

Additionally, simulation supports the 

long-endorsed teaching practice of 

‘‘meaningful repetition.’’ 10 More 

practice in an aviation training device 

until a pilot performs a particular 

segment of a procedure or action 

correctly, before attempting the same in 

an aircraft, is an acceptable and 

desirable practice. Because half of the 

required instrument time under part 61 

(20 hours), or 60 percent of the total 

flight training hours under part 141 (21 

hours), would be accomplished in an 

aircraft, the necessary routine 

mentioned by the commenter will be 

provided during those lessons 

performed while in flight. 

In addition, the commenter stated that 

‘‘[T]he consequences of training pilots 

in ATDs is that they do not experience 

the fear that accompanies real-life 

emergencies, or the sensory inputs that 

come with icing and thunderstorm 

contact.’’ The FAA does not support 

flight training that involves intentional 

flight into dangerous weather 

conditions. Rather, the FAA expects 

pilots to purposely avoid icing 11 and 

thunderstorm conditions 12 and be 

taught to be proficient at doing so. In 

contrast, ATDs allow training to 

simulate inadvertent flight into these 

adverse conditions that cannot be 

accomplished safely in an aircraft. In an 

ATD, students are afforded an 

opportunity to practice recommended 

actions when encountering these 

undesirable weather conditions without 

risk. There are many emergency 

procedures that can be practiced in 

ATDs that cannot be safely 

accomplished in the aircraft. This 

allows for training that students would 

not otherwise receive and provides the 

appropriate mitigation of risk without 

diminishing the quality or depth of 

training. 

Finally, the commenter stated that 

‘‘[f]light simulators are wonderful, but 

very limited devices,’’ asserting that 

simulators have increased reliance on 

screens and autopilots and diminish the 

pilot’s sense of being in charge. The 

commenter disapproved of instructors 

relying less on real world experience 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
34342 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

13AC 61–136A, FAA Approval of Aviation 

Training Devices and Their Use for Training and 

Experience. 

14An exception would still exist for those courses 

that are approved under 14 CFR 141.55(d) and (e). 

15FAA–S–8081–4E, Instrument Rating Practical 

Test Standards, Appendix 1. 

16Taylor, H.L., Talleur, D.A., Emanuel Jr., T.W., 

Rantaner, E., ‘‘Effectiveness of Flight Training 

Devices Used for Instrument Training,’’ Final 

Technical Report AHFD–05–9/FAA–05–4, Federal 

Aviation Administration, May 2005. A copy of this 

document has been placed in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

17Taylor, H.L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C.L., Talleur, 

D., Emanuel, T., Phillips, S., ‘‘Transfer of Training 

Effectiveness of Personal Computer-Based Aviation 

Training Devices,’’ DOT/FAA/AM–97/11, Office of 

Aviation Medicine, Washington, DC, May 1997. A 

copy of this document has been placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

18AC 61–136 first published in July 2008 

provided the standards used today for the approval 

and use of ATD’s. This was recently revised in 

December 2014. 

19 79 FR 20, Notice of Policy Change for the Use 

of FAA Approved Training Devices. 

and that the industry at large puts costs 

before safety. The FAA believes that 

these comments reflect the commenter’s 

concern about automation and advanced 

avionics versus concern about 

simulators. Despite the commenter’s 

concern over automation and advanced 

avionics, the FAA recognizes that use of 

these systems has become commonplace 

in general aviation aircraft. It is 

therefore beneficial to teach the use of 

these advanced systems in ATDs to 

supplement training in the aircraft. 

The second commenter provided 

some support for the use of ATDs, 

noting for example that the cockpit is 

not a suitable classroom in which to 

teach. The commenter also expressed 

concerns that are not specific to ATDs, 

such as communication skills, not 

directly pertinent to the direct final rule 

or to this proposed rule. However, the 

commenter discussed whether training 

flight students in an unrealistic world is 

appropriate. 

The FAA believes that ATDs are 

specifically designed to replicate the 

real world and help pilots to develop 

their instrument skills in advance of 

receiving training and experience in an 

aircraft.13 The concerns raised by both 

commenters are mitigated by the fact 

that a substantial portion of the required 

instrument time would still be 

accomplished in an aircraft. Instrument 

rating applicants would need to obtain 

a minimum of 20 hours of instrument 

time in an aircraft under part 61 or 

complete a minimum of 60 percent of 

the training requirements in an aircraft 

under part 141.14 Additional scrutiny of 

the pilot’s proficiency occurs before an 

FAA examiner during a practical test 

which must be conducted in an aircraft 

in the national airspace system. The 

FAA specifically notes that the airman 

instrument practical test requires 

demonstration of a specific level of 

proficiency and expertise in flight, and 

airman testing in ATDs is not 

permitted.15

Recently documented research 

concerning training effectiveness in 

simulation devices that reflect modern 

ATD systems is limited. The FAA notes 

two studies related to ATDs that were 

done in the past 20 years. The first 

paper published in May of 2005 titled 

‘‘Effectiveness of Flight Training 

Devices Used for Instrument 

Training,’’ 16 referenced the use of an 

Elite PCATD and a Frasca 141 Level 1 

FTD. Students using these two trainers 

generally completed their flight lessons 

(i.e., those accomplished in an aircraft) 

in less time. The overall findings 

reported that flight training hours 

required to develop basic instrument 

flying skills (the report referenced 

aircraft control, instrument departures, 

en-route and approach procedures) was 

reduced. Training hours required to 

develop advanced skills, such as NDB 

holds, approaches, and partial panel 

procedures, were not necessarily 

reduced. However, cross country flight 

training time was reduced by up to 50 

percent for some of these same 

individuals. 

The second research paper, ‘‘Transfer 

of Training Effectiveness of Personal 

Computer-Based Aviation Training 

Devices,’’ 17 published in May 1997, 

discusses the use of a PCATD trainer for 

a two-semester instrument course. 

Trainees that used the training device 

were able to develop the proficiency to 

perform some exercises in the aircraft 

with a flight time savings of 15 percent 

to 40 percent relative to those that did 

not use the training device. However, 

for some other exercises, a burden of an 

extra 25 percent in flight time resulted 

for those students that used the training 

device. 

The FAA believes that these earlier 

studies are largely incomplete because 

the training devices used in the 

aforementioned studies do not reflect 

the current capabilities and standards 18

required for AATDs as the FAA 

approves them today. Most of these 

older devices utilized in the available 

studies lack the sophistication now 

facilitated by more readily available 

advanced computer system software and 

hardware, including improved visuals/

databases, and the increased system 

fidelity and replication that these newer 

training systems take advantage of 

today. The FAA also notes that with the 

increased implementation of scenariobased training, ATDs are used more 

effectively than in the past. Therefore, 

the FAA considers the results of these 

findings somewhat inapplicable and, for 

the reasons described above, believes 

that the proposed regulatory change is 

still in the best interest of aviation 

safety. The FAA seeks comment 

regarding any additional relevant data 

or institutional research that supports 

the training and safety advantages when 

using ATDs, or establishes that such 

devices do not enhance pilot training 

and flight safety. 

As of January 1, 2015, all LOAs issued 

prior to August 23, 2013, for training 

devices approved to meet requirements 

under parts 61 and 141 terminated.19

This means that experience obtained in 

these devices may no longer be credited 

toward aeronautical experience or 

currency requirements in parts 61 and 

141 unless the FAA has issued an 

updated LOA. Therefore, any FAAapproved ATDs being used to meet 

current aeronautical experience 

requirements have been demonstrated to 

meet the updated standards for AATDs 

set forth in AC 61–136 (as amended). 

Devices that were approved beginning 

August 23, 2013, were issued an LOA 

with a 5-year expiration date. This will 

ensure that the type of device meets 

acceptable standards for use in crediting 

aeronautical experience and currency. 

Devices that do not meet the standard 

for an AATD will either be issued an 

LOA that approves the device as a 

BATD (with lower time crediting 

allowances as described in AC 61–136) 

or will simply not be issued an LOA in 

which case the device can be used as a 

training aid, but not credited for 

aeronautical experience. 

In addition, current ATD approval 

and use involves substantial FAA 

scrutiny and oversight as provided in 

the recently revised AC 61–136A, FAA 

Approval of Aviation Training Devices 

and Their Use for Training and 

Experience. As noted above, this 

includes a review for renewal of 

approvals every five years, confirming 

that these training devices continue to 

perform to the updated standards. This 

review is based on standards and 

practices that combine over 30 years of 

experience between the FAA and 

industry. 

B. View-Limiting Devices 

Under § 61.51(g), a person may log 

instrument time only for that flight time 

when the person operates an aircraft 

solely by reference to the instruments 

under actual or simulated conditions. 

When instrument time is logged in an 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 34343 

20AC 61–136A Appendix 4, Training Content and 

Logging Provisions references limitations for 

logging instrument time. 

21As required under § 61.51(g)(4), to log 

instrument time in an ATD for the purpose of a 

certificate or rating, an authorized instructor must 

be present. 

aircraft, a pilot wears a view-limiting 

device to simulate instrument 

conditions and ensure that he or she is 

flying without utilizing outside visual 

references. Currently, § 61.65(i) requires 

a pilot who is logging instrument time 

in an ATD to wear a view-limiting 

device. The direct final rule would have 

revised § 61.65(i)(4) to eliminate the 

requirement that pilots accomplishing 

instrument time in an ATD wear a viewlimiting device. 

The purpose of a view-limiting device 

is to prevent a pilot (while training in 

an aircraft during flight) from having 

outside visual references that would 

naturally be present otherwise. These 

references are not available in a training 

device and a pilot has no opportunity to 

look outside for any useful visual 

references pertaining to the simulation. 

The FAA recognizes that the majority of 

these devices have a simulated visual 

display that can be configured to be 

unavailable or represent ‘‘limited 

visibility’’ conditions that preclude any 

need for a view-limiting device to be 

worn by the student. This lack of visual 

references requires the pilot to give his 

or her full attention to the flight 

instruments which is the goal of any 

instrument training or experience. The 

FAA believes that using a training 

device can be useful because it trains 

the pilot to focus on, appropriately scan 

and interpret the flight instruments. 

Since these devices incorporate a visual 

system that can be configured to the 

desired visibility level, use of a viewlimiting device would have no longer 

been required by the direct final rule. 

When the FAA introduced 

§ 61.65(i)(4) requiring view-limiting 

devices in the 2009 final rule, the 

preamble was silent as to why a viewlimiting device was necessary. 74 FR 

42500, 42523. Based on comments from 

industry, the FAA has determined that 

due to the sophistication of the flight 

visual representation for ATDs and the 

capability of presenting various weather 

conditions appropriate to the training 

scenario, a view-limiting device is 

unnecessary. Because persons operating 

an ATD can simulate both instrument 

and visual conditions, FAA LOAs 

specifically reference § 61.51 that 

stipulates a pilot can only log 

instrument time when using the flight 

instruments for reference and 

operation.20

Comments received: The FAA 

received one comment in response to 

this provision in the direct final rule. 

The commenter believed that removing 

the requirement for a student to wear a 

view-limiting device while using an 

ATD is a sensible decision. The 

commenter believed that there is much 

more benefit to be gained by the view 

limiting features of the ATD itself than 

by a view-limiting piece of headgear. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that 

it is unnecessary for a student to wear 

a view-limiting device when using an 

ATD. The FAA finds that this 

requirement is not necessary because 

ATDs do not afford relevant outside 

references. 

III. The Proposed Rule 

After consideration of the comments 

received to the direct final rule, the FAA 

is proposing the following changes to 14 

CFR parts 61 and 141. These changes 

are the same as in the direct final rule, 

79 FR 71634, (Dec. 3, 2014), withdrawn 

at 80 FR 2001, (Jan. 15, 2015). 

A. Credit for the Aeronautical 

Experience Requirements for an 

Instrument Rating 

The FAA is proposing to increase the 

maximum time that may be credited in 

an ATD toward the instrument time 

requirements for an instrument rating 

under § 61.65(i). A person would be 

permitted to credit a maximum of 20 

hours of instrument time in an approved 

ATD toward the requirements for an 

instrument rating.21 Devices that qualify 

as AATDs would be authorized for up 

to 20 hours of instrument time. Devices 

that qualify as BATDs would be 

authorized for a maximum of 10 hours 

of instrument time. In light of this 

difference, pilots must—as required by 

current regulations—include in their 

logbooks the type and identification of 

any ATD that is used to accomplish 

aeronautical experience requirements 

for a certificate, rating, or recent flight 

experience. 14 CFR 61.51(b)(1)(iv). The 

FAA is retaining the existing limit of 20 

hours of combined time in FFSs, FTDs, 

and ATDs that may be credited towards 

the aeronautical experience 

requirements for an instrument rating. 

B. Approved Instrument Rating Courses 

The FAA is also proposing to amend 

appendix C to part 141 to increase the 

limit on the amount of training hours 

that may be accomplished in an ATD in 

an approved course for an instrument 

rating. An ATD could be used for no 

more than 40 percent of the total flight 

training hour requirements in an 

instrument rating course. The FAA 

notes that this rule would not change 

the current provisions in appendix C 

which limit credit for training in FFSs, 

FTDs, and ATDs, that if used in 

combination, cannot exceed 50 percent 

of the total flight training hour 

requirements of an instrument rating 

course. 

In addition, the FAA is proposing to 

amend § 141.41 to clarify the existing 

qualification and approval requirement 

for FSTDs and to add the qualification 

and approval of ATDs by the FAA, 

which is currently conducted pursuant 

to § 61.4(c). 

C. View-Limiting Device 

The FAA is proposing to revise 

§ 61.65(i)(4) to eliminate the 

requirement that pilots accomplishing 

instrument time in an ATD wear a viewlimiting device. The FAA emphasizes, 

however, that a pilot—whether in an 

aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD—may log 

instrument time only when the pilot is 

operating solely by reference to the 

instruments under actual or simulated 

conditions. If a pilot is using an ATD 

and the device is providing visual 

references upon which the pilot is 

relying, this would not constitute 

instrument time under § 61.51(g). 

IV. Advisory Circulars and Other 

Guidance Materials 

To further implement this rule, the 

FAA is proposing to revise the following 

FAA Order: 

FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards 

Information Management System, 

Volume 11, Chapter 10, Section 1, 

(Basic and Advanced Aviation Training 

Device) Approval and Authorized Use 

under 14 CFR parts 61 and 141. 

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Public Law 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Public Law 96–39) prohibits 

agencies from setting standards that 

create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States. 

In developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
34344 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public 

Law 104–4) requires agencies to prepare 

a written assessment of the costs, 

benefits, and other effects of proposed 

or final rules that include a Federal 

mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation with 

base year of 1995). This portion of the 

preamble summarizes the FAA’s 

analysis of the economic impacts of this 

notice of proposed rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this proposed rule: 

(1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) 

is not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) would not create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States; and (6) 

would not impose an unfunded 

mandate on State, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector by 

exceeding the threshold identified 

above. These analyses are summarized 

below. 

Department of Transportation DOT 

Order 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the costs and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this notice of proposed rulemaking. The 

reasoning for this determination 

follows: 

The provisions included in this rule 

are either relieving or voluntary. The 

elimination of the requirement to use a 

view-limiting device is a relieving 

provision. The other two provisions are 

voluntary and cost relieving—additional 

ATD credit for instrument time for an 

instrument rating and additional ATD 

credit for approved instrument courses, 

if acted upon, is cheaper than flight 

training time. 

Persons who use the new provisions 

would do so only if the benefit they 

would accrue from their use exceeded 

the costs they might incur to comply. 

Given the hundreds of LOAs issued, 

industry’s high usage of ATDs, and 

SAFE and AOPA’s endorsement of 

ATDs, the proposed change in 

requirements is likely to be relieving. 

Benefits will exceed the costs of a 

voluntary rule if just one person 

voluntarily complies. 

Since this proposed rule would offer 

a lower cost alternative, would provide 

regulatory relief for the use of viewlimiting devices, and would allow 

greater voluntary use of ATDs, the 

expected outcome would be cost 

relieving to minimal impact with 

positive net benefits. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Public Law 96–354) (RFA) establishes 

‘‘as a principle of regulatory issuance 

that agencies shall endeavor, consistent 

with the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

Most of the parties affected by this 

rule would be small businesses such as 

flight instructors, aviation schools, and 

fixed base operators. The general lack of 

publicly available financial information 

from these small businesses precludes a 

financial analysis of these small 

businesses. While there is likely a 

substantial number of small entities 

affected, the provisions of this proposed 

rule are either relieving (directly 

provides cost relief) or voluntary 

(provides benefits or costs only if a 

person voluntarily chooses to use the 

rule provision). The FAA made the 

same determination as part of the direct 

final rule and received no comments. 

If an agency determines that a 

rulemaking will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

head of the agency may so certify under 

section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as 

provided in section 605(b), the head of 

the FAA certifies that this rulemaking 

would not result in a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Public Law 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public 

Law 103–465), prohibits Federal 

agencies from establishing standards or 

engaging in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

The FAA has assessed the potential 

effect of this proposed rule and 

determined that it would have only a 

domestic impact and therefore would 

not create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$151.0 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate. Therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Act do not 

apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there is no 

new requirement for information 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 34345 

collection associated with this proposed 

rule. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these regulations. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

VI. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this rule under 

the principles and criteria of Executive 

Order 13132, Federalism. The agency 

has determined that this action would 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, or the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

would not have Federalism 

implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

(77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes 

international regulatory cooperation to 

meet shared challenges involving 

health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

VII. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

this document. The most helpful 

comments reference a specific portion of 

the rule, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

commenters should send only one copy 

of written comments, or if comments are 

filed electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this rulemaking. Before acting on this 

proposed rule, the FAA will consider all 

comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The agency 

may change this rule in light of the 

comments it receives. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Commenters should not 

file proprietary or confidential business 

information in the docket. Such 

information must be sent or delivered 

directly to the person identified in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document, and marked as 

proprietary or confidential. If submitting 

information on a disk or CD ROM, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, the agency does not 

place it in the docket. It is held in a 

separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA processes such a request 

under Department of Transportation 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

• Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

• Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies, or 

• Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.fdsys.gov. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9677. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced above. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 61 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, 

Teachers. 

14 CFR Part 141 

Airmen, Educational facilities, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Schools. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, 

FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 

INSTRUCTORS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 

44701–44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102– 

45103, 45301–45302. 

■ 2. Amend § 61.65 by revising 

paragraph (i) and adding paragraph (j) to 

read as follows: 

§ 61.65 Instrument rating requirements. 

* * * * * 

(i) Use of an aviation training device. 

A maximum of 20 hours of instrument 

time received in an aviation training 

device may be credited for the 

instrument time requirements of this 

section if— 

(1) The device is approved and 

authorized by the FAA; 

(2) An authorized instructor provides 

the instrument time in the device; and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
34346 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(3) The FAA approved the instrument 

training and instrument tasks performed 

in the device. 

(j) A person may not credit more than 

20 total hours of instrument time in a 

flight simulator, flight training device, 

aviation training device, or combination 

toward the instrument time 

requirements of this section. 

PART 141—PILOT SCHOOLS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 141 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 

44701–44703, 44707, 44709, 44711, 45102– 

45103, 45301–45302. 

■ 4. Revise § 141.41 to read as follows: 

§ 141.41 Flight simulators, flight training 

devices, aviation training devices, and 

training aids. 

An applicant for a pilot school 

certificate or a provisional pilot school 

certificate must show that its flight 

simulators, flight training devices, 

aviation training devices, training aids, 

and equipment meet the following 

requirements: 

(a) Flight simulators and flight 

training devices. Each flight simulator 

and flight training device used to obtain 

flight training credit in an approved 

pilot training course curriculum must 

be: 

(1) Qualified under part 60 of this 

chapter; and 

(2) Approved by the Administrator for 

the tasks and maneuvers. 

(b) Aviation training devices. Each 

aviation training device used to obtain 

flight training credit in an approved 

pilot training course curriculum must be 

evaluated, qualified, and approved by 

the Administrator. 

(c) Training aids and equipment. Each 

training aid, including any audiovisual 

aid, projector, mockup, chart, or aircraft 

component listed in the approved 

training course outline, must be 

accurate and relevant to the course for 

which it is used. 

■ 5. Amend Appendix C to part 141 by 

revising paragraph (b) in section 4 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix C to Part 141—Instrument 

Rating Course 

* * * * * 

4. Flight training. * * * 

(b) For the use of flight simulators, flight 

training devices, or aviation training 

devices— 

(1) The course may include training in a 

flight simulator, flight training device, or 

aviation training device, provided it is 

representative of the aircraft for which the 

course is approved, meets the requirements 

of this paragraph, and the training is given 

by an authorized instructor. 

(2) Credit for training in a flight simulator 

that meets the requirements of § 141.41(a) 

cannot exceed 50 percent of the total flight 

training hour requirements of the course or 

of this section, whichever is less. 

(3) Credit for training in a flight training 

device that meets the requirements of 

§ 141.41(a), an aviation training device that 

meets the requirements of § 141.41(b), or a 

combination of these devices cannot exceed 

40 percent of the total flight training hour 

requirements of the course or of this section, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Credit for training in flight simulators, 

flight training devices, and aviation training 

devices if used in combination, cannot 

exceed 50 percent of the total flight training 

hour requirements of the course or of this 

section, whichever is less. However, credit 

for training in a flight training device or 

aviation training device cannot exceed the 

limitation provided for in paragraph (b)(3) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, under the 

authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a)(5), and 

44703(a), on June 10, 2015. 

Michael J. Zenkovich, 

Acting Director Flight Standards Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–14836 Filed 6–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 91 

[Docket No.: FAA–2015–2147; Notice No. 

15–05] 

RIN 2120–AK51 

Transponder Requirement for Gliders 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA requests public 

comment on removal of the current 

transponder exception for gliders. This 

action responds to recommendations 

from members of Congress and the 

National Transportation Safety Board. 

The purpose of this action is to gather 

information to determine whether the 

current glider exception—from 

transponder equipment and use 

requirements—provides the appropriate 

level of safety in the National Airspace 

System. The FAA will use the 

information gathered from this action to 

determine whether additional 

transponder equipment and use 

requirements are necessary for gliders 

operating in the excepted areas. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

August 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2015–2147 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 

public to better inform its rulemaking 

process. DOT posts these comments, 

without edit, including any personal 

information the commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

www.dot.gov/privacy. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Jon M. Stowe, Airspace 

Regulations Team, AJV–113, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–8783; email jon.m.stowe@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Anne Moore, Office of 

the Chief Counsel, AGC–220, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–3073; email Anne.Moore@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

See the ‘‘Additional Information’’ 

section for information on how to 

comment on this advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) and 

how the FAA will handle comments 

received. The ‘‘Additional Information’’ 

section also contains related 

information about the docket, privacy, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS